Introduction
I am interested to have a conversation – How gun control legislation affects the safety of Americans? Gun legislation is a widely controversial topic that is discussed in the media. The reason to have this conversation is to inform, you the reader, of the topic from an academic point of view since gun legislation can be misconstrued by the rhetoric of the media.
I am not to say that the media doesn’t use sources to back-up their claim but rather to give an example of how the media can abuse the source in their own interest. This is the conversation that I am inviting you to have. Often times you may see an article of the shooting happening and how the government reacts, most of the politicians would be in favor of gun regulations, though what really matters are characteristics of how guns affecting the safety of Americans; at least we have to agree on that.
I am wanting to open this conversation with the note I wrote from commuting on a rainy day, “Do we have a price to pay when we walk in the mist”
The Condition of the Media
I am confident you either read, listen to or engage in the media. There is complicated discussion over the gun control. There are arguments that say guns won’t reduce gun violence.
The media, The Los Angeles Times, {17}{18} says that the violence rates are increasing, “President Obama vowed Wednesday night to ‘leave no stone unturned’ in seeking ways to curb the growing challenge of violence in American cities, including reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.” Though, Obama didn’t say that looking from the transcript {20} there was no mentioning of his saying that. In fact looking on FBI statistics { 19} the crimes only goes down from the year of 1990 and 2014. It is my assumption to confide under political standing of The Los Angeles, since it the known to be mostly left-leaning place in the United States.
I am or you are may think it is better to give what people want rather than what they need. Knowing that people’s ideas are challenged will create internal resistance, therefore, the discomfort. Let’s consider if that majority of media started to prioritize the reader’s feelings over the tilt reality of life.
I am giving more examples, article by New York Times ”How to Reduce Shooting,” Nichola Kristol wrote
“It is true that guns are occasionally used to stop the violence. But contrary to what the National Rifle Association suggests, this is rare. One study by the Violence Policy Center found that in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm.”
which is huge not understanding of the topic. A look from the National Academies of Sciences, as in, “effective defensive gun use need not ever lead the perpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess the benefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime and injury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.” {14} from which it means it can be enough to show a gun for the criminal to leave you, it is not the intention to shoot but be prepared to shoot that makes the criminal to avoid the act of crime. As for such Americans with guns scare away the intruders about 498,000 times per year.{4} Also, ⅗ felons are not interested to deal with an armed victim (they just don’t want to take the risk). {15} So the reader’s feelings over the tilt reality.
I am seeing media to say far as stricter gun control legislation would reduce would create less gun-related death {17}{21} It is included suicides as for gun-related death, which is the vast majority of the death by guns. From National Academies of Science analysis on the gun: “Some gun control policies may reduce the number of gun suicides, but they have not yet been shown to reduce the overall risk of suicide in any population.” In fact, NAS always states that defensive use of guns is common, it is estimated between 500.000 and 3,000, 000 lives are saved due to having or using a gun. In proportion for every death by the gun (homicide, accident, suicide) is 80 lives being saved by gun.{12) Out of 464,033 total gun deaths between 1999 and 2013: 270,237 suicides (58.2% of total deaths); 174,773 homicides (37.7%); and 9,983 unintentional deaths (2.2%){8}.
I am not to say that all media are conceived to have this motion. When looking online there are many journals that you the reader never heard of and delivering the journalisms that need praise.
I am liking the writing from Slate on, “If the media wants a healthy conversation about firearm laws, it needs to stop getting basic gun facts wrong when reporting on mass shootings.”{16} and the most coherent thing in there, “Gun-control advocates and their allies in the media will attack the gun-rights crowd as cold-hearted, stubborn, and out of touch.” which summaries the section that I am writing. It expands how the media doesn’t know the differences between assault rifles and assault weapon,{3}, for example, calling AR-15 an assault rifle. Ending the piece with, “They [the media] need to be better informed and more willing to engage honestly with their opponents.” is something that I always keep in my mind when reading an article.
I am not surprised, are you? When I read an article I always think are they trying to spread their rhetoric or just telling the story. What makes the conversation of gun legislation controversial is the division of people. It may seem that I have a standing – perhaps. Though if there were an out of proportion against-gun as suppose to pro-gun research I would tend to have a conversation in that side.
The Importance of Law
I am open to discussing how gun legislation can affect the safety of Americans, the significance of gun legislation is the heart of the conversation. If you follow you what the second amendment says, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” in part “..the right of the people….” is the part some of the politicians just avoid. As from Justice Antonin Scalia state on District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion stated,
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
{5) at such contradictions government should interpret that every citizen could protect them self with the firearm. Although many of the proponents for gun control would say that the part where it is “people would be able to maintain an effective state fighting force—that they would have the right to bear arms in the service of the state.” {9} though neglects the understanding of the constitution when it was written. When the United State established its independence they have fought with British and learned something important, if (any) government going to take over the land the people should be able to have power defend themselves against the government, which means to allow them to bear arms, since the founding father thought that the government shouldn’t be above the people.
I am liking to think that someone doesn’t have power over my safety, how can I trust someone if I have no time (or ability) to call for help in the situation of threat. It is being safe that appeals to me. FBI showed statistics on conceal carry in America has the reduction in 8.5%, rape 5%, aggravated assault 7 %, and robberies 3%{11}. Considering that by carrying the gun the overall statistics of the bad things in a country had been reduced. Gun owners have the low error in detecting bad guy and shooting them (2% error) as suppose to the police who which has been quite high (%11){10}. Considering that the police reinforcement is more flaught in decision making is genuinely shocking.
I am safer because I can have a gun, taking away a gun would give the power (and confidence) to the criminals over me{23}. It is important for every American (not criminals) to be able to protect themselves from the thread with their guns.
Guns and Society
I am to say that, there are many groups (different minorities) that anti-gun groups (or government) try to involve into their own ideology{1}.
I am going to account to LGBTQ, Women Movement, Black Lives Matter, Medical Institutions and the leftist Hollywood as groups who seem to align against the gun, though it may seem the opposite. Anti-gun groups say that gays are being shot but the reality LGBTQ group Pink Pistol with the purpose “We are dedicated to the legal, safe and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community.”. Women movement is mostly against guns because of Trump (the president) but in reality, their many groups which own guns protect themselves, from one of them saying, “What does matter is that women deserve the right to choose how to defend themselves.”. The anti-gun group wants to include people in color (mostly black people) saying that gun ownership is racist but (as may who knows) anti-gun laws are deeply racist, at the time after civil war black people “were forbidden to own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assault.”. Anti-gun medical institutions “Leaders of prominent medical organizations like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and even the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control loudly proclaimed firearms to be a public health menace that should be severely restricted or even banned.”, though organization such as Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership (DRGO) reinforces the idea that the gun owners, “in responsible hands save lives, reduce injuries and protect property by preventing violent crime.”. Everybody knows Hollywood to be far-far left if you have any belief that not resembles the left you wouldn’t be allowed to have a job in the production, a guy with a name Michael More known for the production, “Bowling for Columbine” which known to be anti-gun documentary, says that “..it’s time to repeal the Second Amendment and replace it with a 28th Amendment that puts the public’s safety ahead of an individual’s right to own and fire a gun.”. I know you, the reader, may seem to agree with his statement – nobody would have a gun nobody would shoot. If you look at Britain where the guns are banned they have more violent crimes than in South African and U.S. {2} That trade of thinking safe and being safe is not worth the consequences.
I am sure you got confused why I am talking about society and having a more academic approach – the price being in the mist are the consequences of not knowing in our society – we don’t know how complicated is the gun topic and therefore we don’t expect something bad happening out from society.
Conclusion
I am a person who cares about guns. Walking in the mist try know the price of not knowing and I know that majority of people are walking in the mist not knowing as well. I am the person you who want a gun for the safety. It may be weird to have every paragraph to start with “I am” though how do you know you received the message from me and what I think about guns. You the reader are the chosen to understand the topic that I am interested in. People in the media have their interests, so they think about gun legislation in their own way. Lawmakers should think about the rights of the people to protect themselves with guns. Society has to understand that there are safer with guns. I am the one with the gun’s life.
Sources
1
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2018/3/29/socialist-wave-threatens-to-drown-gun-rights/
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
3
U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, “The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,” Research Report (July 1985): 27.
4
Paper: “Estimating Intruder-Related Firearm Retrievals in U.S. Households, 1994.” By Robin M. Ikeda (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and others. Violence and Victims, Winter 1997. <www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov>
5
US Supreme Court, District of Columbia, et al. v. Heller, www.supremecourt.gov, October 2007
6
Presidential Memorandum—Engaging in Public Health Research on the Causes and Prevention of Gun Violence.” White House, January 16, 2013. <obamawhitehouse.archives.gov>
7
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence.” Edited by Alan I. Leshner and others. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, 2013. <www.nap.edu>
8
CDC, “Data & Statistics (WISQARS),” wisqars.cdc.gov July 12, 2017
9
ilveira v Lockyer. U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, December 05, 2002. Case 01-15098. Before: Reinhardt, Magill, and Fisher, Circuit Judges. <caselaw.findlaw.com>
10
https://americangunfacts.com/pdf/jim-com.pdf
https://www.statisticbrain.com/national-rifle-association-nra-statistics/
11.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB841185795318576500
12
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm
13
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/nyregion/new-york-killers-and-those-killed-by-numbers.html
14
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/how-often-do-citizens-use-guns-to-stop-violence/
15
U.S., Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, “The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons,” Research Report (July 1985): 27.
16
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/06/the-media-keeps-misfiring-when-it-writes-about-guns.html
17
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/five-fallacies-about-guns-and-violence/
18
http://www.latimes.com/la-bio-michael-memoli-staff.html
19
https://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/TrendsInOneVar.cfm?NoVariables=Y&CFID=316542958&CFTOKEN=371335826ace60f-B9706871-AF47-7295-32943E75DCEE3342
20
21
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
22.
https://www.nap.edu/read/10881/chapter/9#192
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
